MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, Fox News, & in Philadelphia Inquirer



Day care

Intelligent Design

Stem Cells Charmaine will be discussing Intelligent Design, Stem Cells, and Daycare over the next few days.

(And The Dreamer has a regatta, The Dude has a baseball game and The Diva will be singing on stage.)

Be sure to read Charmaine’s article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sen. Casey confronts a moment of truth, where she says,

Sen. Bob Casey’s first moment of truth in the U.S. Senate is approaching. And the issue is stem-cell research…

Given his campaign commitment to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and given the role pro-life Pennsylvanians played in electing him, you would think the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 would be a no-brainer for Casey. Yet, suddenly there is some question about his position…

Despite the position candidate Casey took last year, bloggers pushing for embryonic stem-cell funding this year – bloggers including the Daily Kos and Californians for Cure — have listed him as one of the “Swingable Seven,” a group of senators who might be swayed on the issue…

Who would have thought that so soon in his Senate career young Casey would face a defining dilemma: Will he still follow in his father’s footsteps, or trample on his legacy?

Thank you to NRO Web Briefing 3/30/07 for the link.

In reference to a previous article on day care Alert Reader Jill, from Writes Like She Talks (diplomatically) asks,

Dr. Yoest, this article, though obviously well-annotated for its time, is now almost 10 years old. Much has changed in the economy and in numbers of single-parent households. Mobility of jobs and therefore of families has increased.

Given your educational background, I would hope that you could provide a similarly well-annotated update to this nearly decade-old albeit thorough analysis…

Charmaine might be updating some of the data on air. She is scheduled to be on Fox News this Saturday, 31 March, to discuss the NIH’s longitudinal study on day care by the NICH&HD. Hit time is between noon and 1, but is not confirmed.

She also did a tape-to-live segment for Anderson Cooper on Intelligent Design. Free Speech and open inquiry might still be possible in the public schools. Or should liberals censor and gag?


Anderson Cooper, CNN The segment is titled Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution in the classroom. Watch Charmaine debate Rob Boston from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

A Pew Forum poll from 2005 is the backgrounder and says,

Most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula.

While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas ­ particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives ­ have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism.

But an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between people’s beliefs and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of terms such as “creationism” and “evolution.”

The Pew poll also has data on political party public perceptions,

The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms.

By a wide margin ­ 51% to 28% ­ the Republican Party is seen as most concerned with protecting religious values.

By a nearly identical margin (52%-30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.

Tune in and let us know what you think.


Thank you (foot)notes:

See the Congressional Quarterly quote on Stem Cell Research.

Also see Does God Belong in Public Schools? published in The Weekly Standard.

Be sure to visit What is Wrong with Sober’s Attack on ID? (Part III): Ignoring the Widely Discussed Positive Predictions of Intelligent Design at the Discovery Institute.


You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Jill says:

    Thanks for the recall on my comment. Though I imagine that there are numerous ways in which Charmaine (if I may call her by that) and I differ in our preferences regarding certain issues, I have great respect for her pedigree – gained inside and outside a classroom.

    (I’m still hoping for a response about how she feels regarding the liberties Ann Coulter takes with her lexicon and how that relates to teaching kids about critical thinking and debate. And, as they say, I’d take my answer off the air if she’d be willing to share her thoughts on it with me.)

    Best of luck in all your appearances.

  2. andy says:

    So, will Mrs. Yoest answer Mr. Boston’s question about the age of the Earth that she was desperately trying to answer that she never actually did?

  3. PZ Myers says:

    So, now that that mean ol’ Boston fellow isn’t interrupting you, and you have the leisure to simply write out your answer, perhaps you can finally address the question you were asked.

    How old is the earth?

    One word will do: thousands or billions of years old?

  4. Ed says:

    How old is the earth?

  5. Comstock says:

    I think it would have been nice if you answered the question about whether you believed humans co-existed with dinosaurs and how old you thought the Earth was.

  6. mikep says:

    Please do answer the question, Charmaine. There’s nothing tricky or difficult about it.

  7. Dr. Steve says:

    I’d also like to know your answer to the question. But I feel you will continue to evade it. I once put the same question to Michael Fumento.

    I pointed out that anwering was a lose-lose. If he anwers “thousands” he loses the veneer of scientific credibility (thin as it was to start with). If he answers “billions” he alienates his base.

    You are in the same basket – so what will it be?

    Honesty would be refreshing.

  8. Ugo Cei says:

    Indeed, please answer this question: how old do you think the Earth is and how did you reach this conclusion?

  9. tony says:

    if you answer the earth age question, i have another one for you: does the earth revolve around the sun or does everything revolve around the earth?

  10. Michael Smith says:

    Age of Earth: Is it thousands or billions of years old?

  11. Rich says:

    Hi! I’d love to knwo how old you think the world is. many thanks.

  12. steve fisher says:

    I think it’s obvious that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, just as the Bible says. There was no room for them on Noahs’ ark, not to mention their unpleasant dispositions and huge appetites. Therefore Noah chose to let them perish in the flood. Asteroid impact, indeed. The Bible says nothing about an asteroid impact. Duh.

  13. Paula says:

    I have a few questions:

    1. How old do you believe the earth is?

    2. Did dinosaurs & humans coexist?

    3. Why didn’t you give a straightforward answer in the interview? You had plenty of opportunity.

  14. James Linzel says:

    Although it should be respected that you have earned a phD, its important to realize that you do not qualify to judge evolutionary theory. Secondly, subject curricula is dictated by the subject being taught. I am a high school science teacher and it would be unprofessional to teach the history of world war 2 during my classes. Similarly it would be damaging to my students to knowingly [even unknowingly] teach factual or theoretical inaccuracies. The only potential use ID has in my science classroom is as a model of inappropriate use of science terminology or an example of the general public’s misunderstanding of the scientific process. Schools that ‘teach the debate’ simply misrepresent the scientific process.


  15. weemaryanne says:

    How old is the earth? Thousands or billions? One word will do. Thanks.

  16. Steve Fisher says:

    Science, in modern times, is based on gathering evidence from the real world and drawing inferences from this reality based evidence to create hypotheses which are then tested by experimentation to determine their validity. With enough confirmed evidence a hypothesis can be elevated to the status of theory. However, (and this is the beauty of science) a theory can be invalidated by any confirmed evidence that disproves said theory. There is no room in science for the supernatural because the supernatural cannot be tested or proved. Both creationism and intelligent design invoke a supernatural power and therefore are outside the realm of science. Including supernatural based ideas like creationism or intelligent design in science classes is tantamount to including astrology as science just because people believe in it. Science moves forward by the gathering and testing of evidence and does not rely on opinion or what people believe. The belief in the supernatural is what is known as faith, and must be kept out of science classes. To not do so would be returning to a Medieval world view. Keep faith where it belongs, in peoples hearts and places of worship, and leave science, the most successful human endeavor, alone.

  17. D Nessamar says:

    People seem to avoid looking at reality, bare and unfiltered. Real facts about reality that science continues to uncover demand we honestly evaluate their significance. So much is taken for granted or dismissed without the slightest accounting of dumbfounded marvel, as if the new discoveries are nothing special and easily explained by men, great and wise beings that we are. We delude ourselves.

    Evolution rests on random chance within a material system and depends on a huge helping of time to make its claims plausible. It is hampered by a persistent lack of evidence in the fossil record to support key assumptions of the theory. Competing views rest on apparent design, supported by inexplicable order and amazing and complex interrelationships found in all living systems, from the smallest to the largest, that are difficult to explain with chance and natural selection alone.

    I challenge anyone to explain how either view exists without a huge measure of faith. For myself, I just can’t assign chance the miracles required to make a random system possess the level of order evident in the universe. Mathematically, the odds against it make it illogical. Contrarily, who among us has the capacity to make sense of a supernatural being possessing the abilities needed to create the universe in all of its complexity? But, is it harder to explain observable reality within the context of billions of years and ridiculous odds or in terms of the work of an intelligent being? I say they are equally difficult to support. If it’s possible for the universe to overcome statistical improbability and come into existence by chance, it’s equally possible it came into being by intent.

    In both camps, we suffer under mystery. Each requires faith, negating the argument. An appraisal of our human limitations would give science its due but admit it is incomplete, imperfect, and subject to new revelations. Defining reality as only that which science can explain supposes that exclusion of all else is incontrovertible. Another error. In the interest of scientific integrity, we must continue to examine and debate the scientific claims of each theory, or we will have abandoned intellectual honesty in favor of affiliation, acceptance, appeasement or the like. When ideology comes against the spirit of scientific discovery–from whichever camp it originates–truth is that much more elusive. The question is: are we looking for truth, or a substitute we find acceptable?

  18. James says:

    A response to D. Nessamar.

    First, “Evolution rests on random chance”. Although genetic mutation is a random series of events, natural selection is definately NOT random. Selection depends on the fitness differences and is VERY powerful. It directs evolution.

    Secondly, It is hampered by a persistent lack of evidence in the fossil record to support key assumptions of the theory”. If we look ONLY at fossil evidence we could argue a lack of evidence. However, the substantiating evidence from genetics -especially new evolutionary developmental biology- directly support modern evolutionary thought. I would also direct you to investigate the recent discovery of many transitional fossils.

    Finally, due to the impracticality of calculating any reasonable value of the ‘probability’ of life and evolution, the argument should be highly discredited. Once again, natural selection directs evolution and its power is HIGHLY underestimated. We are only beginning to understand the forceful push of selection in nature. Don’t let anthropomorphic incredulence be an argument. Its baseless.

    James Linzel